Bush Orders Mass Bald Eagle Slaughter To Stop Spread Of Bird Flu
Should Other nations follow suit?
Do Other Nations HAVE National Birds?
Printable View
Bush Orders Mass Bald Eagle Slaughter To Stop Spread Of Bird Flu
Should Other nations follow suit?
Do Other Nations HAVE National Birds?
I read this yesterday and was thinking of posting it too. :D
Have you considered purchasing your own website? It'd serve as a motivation to pursue further research on Magical Hexagons. On geocities, it'll remain in neglect for long periods of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
In a related story
Hillary Calls for Universal Chicken Health Care
Why not just slaughter all birds, including females? :rolleyes:
What a fowl thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
Did I offend you?
do what we do, just wing it.
Bush supports Intelligent Design and in order for the bird flu to become a pandemic it has to evolve. So is Bush wasting money on something that he dosn't think can happen?
Be quiet you. God has all the answers.
There's a horrible thought. He can't even sort out his own staff let alone the rest of the world :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
And what would you know about this over there?Quote:
He can't even sort out his own staff let alone the rest of the world
Maybe in time we will come to think of president Bush as the poor man who had to do 4 more years.
More likely we will think of him as one of the world's greatest leaders.Quote:
Maybe in time we will come to think of president Bush as the poor man who had to do 4 more years.
There are better ways of phrasing irony . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
That proves to me once again Ignorance IS Bliss!!! And yes, there are better ways of phrasing irony.
.
It's a little thing called the News, you should watch it some time. Many of his closest aids are under criminal investigation!Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
As for Bush being the greatest leader, I think not. He's an idiot
That's what all of you "Spoon Fed" Brits think. "Oh Bush this, Bush that..." Listen, Bush is not responsible for every little thing that goes on in this world. Unless you consider him God, and then that's understandable. If you knew anything about government, you'd know that the government works as a whole, both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. What keeps Presidents from being "True Leaders" is called Checks and Balances. And you should stop watching the mainstream media, cause all they ever do is bad mouth Bush like you brainwashed Brits. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Its his face that annoys me most. I do feel sorry for the US, he has got to be the biggest idiot in American history. I am impressed that they managed to find him.
Spoon fed? The BBC News is seen as very impartial and thus very respectable, besides I always research a story from multiple places (Reuters, CNN, BBC etc) to get all the facts. Bush simply is not a good leader, he is too naive and is too opinionated when he should be impartial.
Don't like the guy. Any good leader should be trusted, and he is not trustworthy. Simple as that.
Oh yeah and "us" brits arn't spoon fed, we're smart enough to work it out ourselves. :p
Agreed :thumb:
:D
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
"But Iraq has—have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future."
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me."
"We need to apply 21st-century information technology to the health care field. We need to have our medical records put on the I.T."
"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."
from here
The worry is not so much the leader (Mr Bush) it's the 'free-minded' people who think that he's great.
Out of around 300million people you'd think they'd be able to find someone who is at least in command of his native language . . .
http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2005/09/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
I hate to say this but the BBC is more liberal than CBS, ABC, and CNN combined. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I only get CNN International and I found it quite biased towards the allies during the beginning of Iraq. Not that I would say they should favor the other side but they could have taken a bit less off a cheerleader type stance. Not so much selfreflection would have been necessary afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
The Vice-president's aide has been indicted. What does this mean? It means that a federal prosecutor and a grand jury have decided there is evidence that Libbey lied to investigators and to the jury. This is based on conflicting statements given by news reporters.Quote:
It's a little thing called the News, you should watch it some time. Many of his closest aids are under criminal investigation!
The Democrats would like to think that this shows there is corruption throughout the Whitehouse.
Many in the liberal news media hope this is true and are in some cases misreporting the truth to make it look so (what a surprise).
Now we learn that the prosecutor probably didn’t have all the facts and this indictment will go nowhere
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051117/D8DU01F00.html
So much for the news you are getting over there…
This is what you libs were saying about Reagan. Every time we elect a conservative president, we get the say tired old comments from the peanut gallery.Quote:
As for Bush being the greatest leader, I think not. He's an idiot
Yea, like Clinton? Talk about the worst presidents.Quote:
Out of around 300million people you'd think they'd be able to find someone who is at least in command of his native language . . .
Good one moeur. :thumb:
And what makes things even funnier in the world of politics is that whenever a Democratic president is elected, all of a sudden in the back of all your liberal minds, the deficit is gone. We had and always had a deficit since the 60's when we had the Vietnam war, and it never has gone away since.
You libs are even saying that Bush is spending money like crazy. He does NOT have the power to spend money from the deficit. That's congresses job. And ever since he lowered taxes, I have been receiving $1500 tax returns every May! During the Clinton era, I've been only getting $100-$300. Cheap skates. Still think Bush is an idiot?
You libs keep saying that it was Bush's fault our gas prices are so high. The reason why our gas prices are so high is because the psycho environmentalists (tree hugging hippies) don't want us to do any more digging for oil here in America, and as a result, we have not had a new oil refinery in over 25 years, and have to depend on foreign oil. And ever since 9/11 and the hurricanes from last year and this year, the CEO's of the refineries and the oil companies have been price gouging the gas prices and the barrel prices just so they can keep their multi million dollar salaries.
It's funny you people say that we only have the Iraq war cause of the oil, yet at the same time say Bush is raising our gas prices. That controdicts itself all together, not to mention the President nor the government doesn't have the power to control the prices of products.
Digging oil in america doesn't make any difference in pricing since the amount is futil and according to your principals it is exposed to the market, wich is bloated with foreign oil.
I'm not gonna check the numbers, but are you sure you're not talking about debt, rather than a budget deficit?Quote:
We had and always had a deficit since the 60's when we had the Vietnam war, and it never has gone away since.
Are you trying to say Bush doesn't have any power or say or effect or influence of any kind over how the government's money is spent? So the decision to approve millions of dollars to spend on the Iraq invasion and later reconstruction were done by the congress and without any active support from Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
And the president or the government doesn't have the power to control the prices of products???
Are you just out of the nursery or what?
Well, the truth is that the Iraqi war was fought for everything other than the reasons put forth by Bush, so the control on Iraqi oil is one of the biggest reasons behind the invasion. What Bush didn't reckon was the militants would blow up his plans and put the oil production out of order for many months to come.
Are you even remotely aware of the US-EU-Rest of the world conflict on the agricultural subsidies being offered in the US? And if you are aware of it, do you still want to say the government has no role in controlling the prices of products?
There's no free market anywhere, the only free market you can have is one that's controlled by you.
.
Get real dude. The checks and balances only exist on paper. If you believe anywhere on this earth you find a perfect system, you are a fool. No system is perfect, no government is perfect and it's time you came out of your textbooks and started learning the real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Bush is irresponsible, that's a fact ;)
If Bush really isn't at fault, how do you explain nominating one's own buddy to the Supreme Court, who doesn't even have any actual experience of being a judge? And telling the nation to simply "Trust my judgement"? Is that how you think your government should be run? Almost in all the cases, it seems Bush's only real appeal to the people is "Trust me on this", "Trust me on that". I wonder how the people in the US can even buy such stupid arguments in such important decisions. I guess if your car broke down and if your mechanic told you something is wrong with the carb and you ask him why and he says "Trust me on this", I am sure you would check with another mechanic and try to get to the root cause of the problem in a more educated way than placing blind trust in someone. Too bad you don't think your nation's problems should be fixed the same way....
.
No, it's your opinion.Quote:
Bush is irresponsible, that's a fact
No experience is required. In fact it is only in recent times that we have actual judges nominated for supreme court positions. Who knows what was going through his head hwen he nominated her? It was probably a gesture to the Dems since they are the ones who had suggested it. The Republicans wanted no part of it however. But in the end it comes down to the fact that the President has every right to nominate anyone he pleases to the court, just as he has the right to pardon anyone too. Just ask Bubba Clinton about that one.Quote:
how do you explain nominating one's own buddy to the Supreme Court, who doesn't even have any actual experience of being a judge?
Not to control, but they can have some influence. For instance if they wanted to lower gas prices they could tell all the environmentalists to go to hell and allow the oil companies to build more refineries.Quote:
And the president or the government doesn't have the power to control the prices of products?
Conspiracy nonsense.Quote:
Well, the truth is that the Iraqi war was fought for everything other than the reasons put forth by Bush, so... Blah, blah, blah
It's a lot more free than you seem to realize. If the president had so much control why hasn't Bush lowered gas prices which would give him an immediate jump in the polls?Quote:
There's no free market anywhere...
Think about it this way Jacob... when the rest of the world runs out of oil who is going to have it? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Hey honeybee - why don't you worry about your own nations problems. Find some answers for those now that you have all the answers to ours.
Hey demotivater, why don't you let us debate what whe like?
btw, I'd invite you to completely ridicule my Prime Minister but you probably won't know him :D
Feel free - I don't recall trying to stop you.
I ridicule my Prime Minister and I don't know him.
:rolleyes:
Let's be honest here guys. Bush is not very respected in the international community and since coming into power he has very much hurt the US and its relations with other nations (and whether you like it or not you need good relations with other countries). I hope for the US's sake a good president follows him
And your idea of a good leader is...?Quote:
Let's be honest here guys. Bush is not very respected in the international community and since coming into power he has very much hurt the US and its relations with other nations (and whether you like it or not you need good relations with other countries). I hope for the US's sake a good president follows him
Probably one that agrees with your liberal politics. Face it, every time we elect a conservative president the "rest of the world" claims he is a bad leader. This criticism is more rooted in political bigotry than in fact.
Actually I considered Clinton a pretty good leader. Sure he had is vices but who amongst us doesn't?
As for my liberal politics I wouldn't expect any leader to agree with me 100% of the time, that is frankly a very naive viewpoint. All I ask is that a leader looks at a situation objectively, weighs the facts, ignores the fiction and has the conviction to follow it through to the end. This is why I respect Tony Blair. Sure I disagree with some of his policies, quite often actually, but I would still consider him a good leader...especially considering the opposition :sick:
The biggest problem I had with Slick Willie was not his frequent peccadilloes, even though they served to distract him from the job he was sent to Washington to do, but his absolute lack of leadership. He did almost nothing during his eight years there, he was too busy sticking his finger in the wind to find out what he should do next.Quote:
Actually I considered Clinton a pretty good leader. Sure he had is vices but who amongst us doesn't?
In contrast Bush does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. Some call this undiplomatic and arrogant, but I call it a refreshing display of leadership.
So you are a Bush fan after all! I knew you'd eventually come to agree with me. :)Quote:
All I ask is that a leader looks at a situation objectively, weighs the facts, ignores the fiction and has the conviction to follow it through to the end.
Nah, I won't do it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Similarly, I would suppose if a person who had eye treatment for an infection complained to the nurses about excessive pain, the nurses and doctors caring about this patient should take the time and inspect the eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_3793297.htm
Quote:
Scampering rats and stray cats and dogs sharing bed space with patients are not uncommon sights at India's overcrowded state-run hospitals that are used by millions of poor and middle-class people.
To think that Bush ignores the polls is incredible! He just ignores the general populations. He jumps VERY high when the right people (very right, mostly christian right) speak. However, he is HIGHLY sensitive to manipulating the polls. The concept of the permanent campaign was developed by the republican party....(I forget, but I think the term was coined by a strategist during the Carter administration). Some folks have said that Bush is the ultimate example of that. He isn't running every four years, he is ALWAYS running. No action he has ever taken was conducted without regards to election potential. Thus, we see alot of loudly stated initiatives (like peace in the Middle East, etc) that are actually things that most people support. However, there is no effort spent backing these initiatives, because the announcement rather than the initiative is the important point.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Could you point to any examples of leadership on his part that have worked?
I realize that I am on the left in this forum, but in politics, I'm actually closer to the center simply because I grew up in them. What I like is the process....hmmm, process.....programming.....related? Somebody who does a masterful job at the game of governing has my support. I have always been a fan of our senator Mike Crapo, though he is a conservative. I believe that he is a good democratic leader, and the type of person we should have representing us, even if I don't agree with all of his positions.
By that standard, I see Bush as the most inept president of my brief experience. He is like a golfer with a bag full of clubs, but regardless of the situation, he ALWAYS uses the 9-iron. Sometimes it's the right club....but usually it isn't.
He does not base his actions on the popular opinion of the moment that's true.Quote:
To think that Bush ignores the polls is incredible! He just ignores the general populations.
Are we talking about Clinton again?Quote:
Thus, we see alot of loudly stated initiatives (like peace in the Middle East, etc) that are actually things that most people support. However, there is no effort spent backing these initiatives, because the announcement rather than the initiative is the important point.
Tax cuts, War on terror, fixing the problems with the supreme court.Quote:
Could you point to any examples of leadership on his part that have worked?
Can you name anything Clinton did in his eight years that would illustrate your idea of good leadership?
Areas where Bush's leadership is lacking: Failure to control the borders, Failure to reign in the congress on spending, makes too many goodwill gestures to the Democrats (such as allowing Kennedy to write the new medicare spending bill) who only turn around and stab him in the back at every opportunity they get.
I think brief experience might be the key phrase here. I'm not trying to insult you, but many people either do not have a long memory or are new to politics so cannot really compare one president with another.Quote:
By that standard, I see Bush as the most inept president of my brief experience
As an example of this short memory, the major reason the war effort is losing popular support is the US body count. Hello! People die in war but this war has a record low level of both US and civilian losses of any major conflict on record.
As a side note - watch for news regarding the borders to come out very soon.
Why do I have to support Clinton if I oppose Bush?
Tax cuts are certainly controversial. Cutting your income while greatly increasing your spending is not conservative, nor is it responsible. However, they have asserted that deficits don't matter (which is disingenous, since the folks in the adminsitration support the 'starve the beast' philosophy).Quote:
Tax cuts, War on terror, fixing the problems with the supreme court.
War on Terror: Nice words, where's the actions to back it up? Here's what I see, add to it:
Afghanistan: Good start, but from the small amount that still makes it to the news, we failed in EVERY stated pre-war objective, and are slowly losing the war.
Iraq: Didn't need to happen. They had no involvement with Queda (though they sure have an involvement now), they were no threat to us, no WMD, sanctions, which were much cheaper, were keeping them contained. The result has been great expense, loss of life, consumption of resources, and an increase in terrorism....except that the report that showed that was altered to show the opposite, then suppressed when it was corrected.
Dept of Homeland Security: Bush opposed it, but was forced to accept it. Never fully funded it, nor staffed it well. The result has been general mismanagement, and a huge expense burden passed to the states as an unfunded mandate (something conservatives have opposed historically).
Are we safer? Most people I know of are more fearful. Part of that was due to the changing alert levels (which stopped changing right after the election).
Fixing the problems with the supreme court: I didn't know there were any problems...except for them jumping into the Bush v Gore bit. As for appointing justices, Bush has only appointed as many as there were openings, nobody could do more.....but then again, nobody could do less, either.
As for age, I remember watergate, but I was REALLY young at the time. The Carter-Ford race was the first one I paid any attention to. Therefore, I have only watched presidencies from Carter to present. However, I am reasonably familiar with others back to the Civil War, since I have a strong interest in history.
Politics have become deliberately more divisive since the 80's. Somewhere in there, people decided that the ultimate goal was the power, not the leadership. The result has been a string of attacks that have been almost entirely based on character over substance, have generally originated from the right, have been only questionably honest, and have often been racist.
The first one I can remember was Willy Horton, which hurt Dukakis. We still talk about the "I created the internet" bit from Gore. Few people realize that this was a horrible corruption of what was actually said, and few people realize that the corruption was perpetrated by a conservative activist. Last election we saw the Swiftboat veterans. By the time they had been discredited (most of there statements appear to have been outright lies), they had done the damage. An honestly, repeatedly, decorated war veteran came across as more cowardly than a man who had been kept out of the war.
You don't need a long memory to have seen this grow. Unfortunately, it has been succesful. The thing about Clinton is that he was able to connect with so many voters (in more ways than one) in a time when politics was being steered straight for the gutter. Now we're down there. Will we come back out? My fear is that the Democratic party will see the last two elections as an example of how to play, and mimic the Republican example.
Shaggy,
It is very interesting to read your comments. You make statements to you that are matters of fact, but to me are lies and distortions. We are obviously either getting our information from two different realities, or only hear the news that we want to hear. A couple of examples:
Afghanistan: Good start, and going very well to date despite the fact that very little news is reported from there except body counts.Quote:
Afghanistan: Good start, but from the small amount that still makes it to the news, we failed in EVERY stated pre-war objective, and are slowly losing the war.
The problem with the courts is in the news everyday. When Appointed judges (not elected by the people) decide it is within their power to write new law that is a problem. I know Democrats don't see this as a problem because this is the final avenue they have left to them to put their policies into place since they can no longer get elected by the people of the country.Quote:
Fixing the problems with the supreme court: I didn't know there were any problems...except for them jumping into the Bush v Gore bit. As for appointing justices, Bush has only appointed as many as there were openings, nobody could do more.....but then again, nobody could do less, either.
Last election we saw one of the candidate proclaim what a great veteran he was until a group of pissed-off fellow veterans told the country the truth. We also had a major news organization embarrass itself by using forged documents to try to discredit the candidate they did not like.Quote:
Last election we saw the Swiftboat veterans. By the time they had been discredited (most of there statements appear to have been outright lies), they had done the damage. An honestly, repeatedly, decorated war veteran came across as more cowardly than a man who had been kept out of the war.
How is it going well? Our stated objectives before the war were: 1) Get Osama, 2) Get Mullah Omar, 3)Topple the Taliban, 4)Shut down the terrorist training camps.Quote:
Afghanistan: Good start, and going very well to date despite the fact that very little news is reported from there except body counts.
1)Failed.
2)Failed.
3)Success, but the Taliban is resurgent, so the final word is not in yet.
4)Temporary success, but reports in the news are that there are terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, they are simply more mobile than they were. Thus, Failed.
Also, only two cities are stable, heroin production is sky rocketing, and the warlords rule much of the country. None of those had to do with our stated objectives. Looking back in five years, will 3 remain a success? I think it probably won't, since it is such a back-burner issue now.
No court has EVER written a law in this country, they only rule on an interpretation. Those rulings have favored the left over the right for a few decades, and that may (or may not) shift. In general, judges move left as they stay on the court.
However, the right does not wants the court to be activist. They wanted the court to intervene in the Terri....uhhh, can't spell it, but you know what I mean....case, even though the FL law on the subject clearly stated the case. That would have been VERY activist. Abortions tougher, since you will violate somebodies perceived rights one way or the other. On school prayer, conservatives would like a ruling that reads the Establishment of Religeon clause in a laughably narrow way. And so on. They want activist judges, they just want them to be activist in their way.
I honestly thought that everybody had realized that these folks had been discredited for lying. None of them were at any of the fights leading to the medals, none of the people who WERE at the fights were able to corroborate anything they had claimed (one of the news organizations, CNN or somebody, actually went out and interviewed the other side (Vietnamese) on this one). Basically, nothing they had stated matched the facts remembered by combatants and civilians on either side of the conflicts in question. What more evidence of deception do you need? But again, I thought everybody had dispensed with this months ago. My memory of it has faded a bit, so I would have to do some digging to cite sources on it.Quote:
Last election we saw one of the candidate proclaim what a great veteran he was until a group of pissed-off fellow veterans told the country the truth. We also had a major news organization embarrass itself by using forged documents to try to discredit the candidate they did not like.
Terrorists are no longer launching attacks against the US from Afghanistan any more. That was our sole reason for going there.Quote:
How is it going well?
really? Where in the constitution does it give women the right to an abortion? I'll tell you; no where. This is a right given to women of the US by the supreme court in the absence of any law that addressed the issue. To me this is writing new law and it is not the court's place to do it. What should be done is Congress should pass a law giving women this right because it is the Congress' job to write law.Quote:
No court has EVER written a law in this country,
this is a joke; right? The Vietnamese actually have exhibits in their museum dedicated to the great war hero Kerry. The lies he told when he came back, for his own political purposes, were shameful. This is the sort of behavior Kerry exhibited that the SB vets were trying to inform the American people about, not whether or not a splinter he received during a battle qualified him for a purple heart and an early return home.Quote:
one of the news organizations, CNN or somebody, actually went out and interviewed the other side (Vietnamese) on this one
Shaggy, we could go on forever arguing these issues which will never be put to rest. I read and hear both sides of these agruments and still do not think the other side of the opinion makes any sense to me and i'm sure you see it the same.
I wish we could get together in a coffee shop somewhere regularly and have these discussions becuase I really do enjoy discussing such things with someone like you and a few others on these forums, who take the other position and have obviously thought these things through. Most people I run into in person are only spouting what someone else told them but have no depth to their opinions once I start to question them.
Idaho is a little far to go for coffee :)
You're right. I had a reply to your posts, but killed it off. On these issues, we see it in a completely different way. Kind of funny, since it all makes sense to each of us.Quote:
Shaggy, we could go on forever arguing these issues which will never be put to rest. I read and hear both sides of these agruments and still do not think the other side of the opinion makes any sense to me and i'm sure you see it the same.
Glad you're here.
Have a nice day. :wave:
So if Indian hospitals have rats, Bush can lie to the American people? That's wonderful! Somehow I find this kind of linking very close to what Bush did to justify the Iraq invasion: Al Qaeda and Iraq, two completely unrelated topics. Maybe it's in the system that you learn to make such weird (dis)connections?Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
.
Ouch, did I step onto your raw nerves? Sorry for that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Let me tell you a story in case you haven't heard it already:
In a village a woman was convicted of adultery and as per the custom she was going to be killed by people throwing stones at her. Just then Jesus Christ happened to visit the village. He enquired about the whole affair and agreed in the end that the punishment was just. He only put one condition to the people: The person who hasn't committed a single sin in their life will throw the first stone.
Read the news. Your government's officials are all over the world telling everybody what's good and what's not good for them. If you get so pissed off about others commenting on your problems, you had better tell your own arrogant government to stop having opinions on everything and everybody in the rest of the world. I guess that's fair and square, isn't it?
.
Please do not attempt to force a response by including religious preaching in a thread with no religious conetations.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Actually I dislike Bush greatly. When the conservative christians tell him to do something he does so without question. No, he is very opinionated and frankly is not well respected. As for him basing his choices on popular opinion, no he doesn't but that is only because he listens to a select group with an alterior motive.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
What scares me sometimes is the severe lack of anything resembling either intelligence or common-sense, and for the most powerful man in the world, this is truly terrifying :sick:
Of course you dislike Bush. You're British. It's becoming a damn stereotype with you Brits. Plus you people talk funny. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I am only British by nationality, I am in fact Welsh so please get your facts straight first. Your comment implies that the country of my birth dictates my thinking which must therefore suggest that I must dislike ALL US presidents prior to Bush. If you had taken the time to read this thread you would know that is not the case, as there have been many good leaders, and good men, who were President of the US.
As for us talking funny, to whom are you referring? Welsh talk very differently to the English, Scots and Irish. We even have local accents in Wales itself (a country whom is vastly smaller than Florida I might add). I have not stooped low enough to take cheap shots, so please do not try and drag this thread down as thus far it has been very interesting, and highly respectful.
This of course it simply untrue. He does what he thinks is right. If he always did what the conservatives were pressuring him to do he would: crack down on illegal immigration, veto spending bills passed by congress, prosecute the war more vigorously and stop extending the hand of friendship to the Democrats; each time he does they bite it.Quote:
Actually I dislike Bush greatly. When the conservative christians tell him to do something he does so without question.
A good thingQuote:
No, he is very opinionated
Don't care.Quote:
and frankly is not well respected.
All presidents listen to a select group with an ulterior motive, this group is called his advisors. The one difference with Bush's group is that their ulterior motive is to do what is good for the country.Quote:
As for him basing his choices on popular opinion, no he doesn't but that is only because he listens to a select group with an alterior motive.
Here we go again... This is always said by the libs around the world each time we elect a conservative president. I remember very clearly the same thing when Reagan was president. In fact I was doing it back then because I was a lib myself.Quote:
What scares me sometimes is the severe lack of anything resembling either intelligence or common-sense, and for the most powerful man in the world, this is truly terrifying
Were Bush and Reagan the most intelligent presidents we’ve had? Probably not, but compared to the general population they certainly had above average intelligence or they couldn’t have accomplished the things that they have. I’ve come to realize that superior intelligence usually does not make a good president. Two of the most intelligent presidents we’ve had in the recent past were Carter and Nixon. Not looked upon today as two of our best.
I guess I'll stay out of it this time.
However, I do have a question:
It has been my observations that when it comes to Bush on this forum, Americans are divided, which is an accurate reflection of this country. However, it seems that the non-Americans on this forum (regardless of nationality) are VERY strongly or even unanimously anti-Bush. Is that correct? Show of hands?